Nicker on 4/10/2018 at 02:18
Here's an interesting radio segment (
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/opposing-opinions-could-make-echo-chamber-even-tighter-1.4842814) discussing an experiment to test the nature of "echo chambers" on social media, specifically twitter.
Click the
Listen button, below the graphic.
Quote:
For the experiment, they recruited about 1,200 Republicans and Democrats to complete a survey about their political views. Following the survey, they offered half of the group financial incentives to follow a bot created for the study that retweeted messages from the other side, exposing them to messages from opinion leaders of the other party.
One month later, when those who followed the bot were surveyed again, they discovered that nobody became more moderate.
They saw no difference among Democrats, but Republicans actually became substantially more conservative when they followed a Democratic bot. It's only one experiment using one platform in one country but it is suggestive that people whose core values include tradition and stability are simple more resistant to change.
Quote:
"We don't want anybody to take away from our study that all attempts to reach across political divides are inherently doomed."
Bail thinks reducing political polarization on Twitter could require a gradual approach. "If you imagine you wake up one morning and all of the sudden your filter bubble has popped, you know it's not a pleasant experience," said Bail.
He suggests that Twitter could build a tool that would allow individual users to monitor whether they're being exposed to the same type of information repeatedly. "Research shows that if people have control over that information learning process that they're much more persuadable," Bail added.
Thirith on 4/10/2018 at 06:39
Frankly, I have massive issues with (de facto) two-party systems and with strong leader figures. IMO a government has to represent not just the majority but the whole electorate - according to proportionality, surely, but any politics that's about going, "Screw the 49% that voted against us, we're just in power for the 51% that voted for us!" is toxic and essentially undemocratic, as far as I'm concerned, because I consider the checks and balances in the system as much a part of democracy as the idea of the majority. Otherwise you foster a system and a society that is inherently adversarial, and I don't see any advantage in that.
scumble on 4/10/2018 at 07:54
I'm generally with Thirith - because you get these pendulum swings in administration where one side undoes what the previous administration did. It's immensely wasteful. Like two people pulling in opposite directions on a boat's tiller.
I don't even know how much PR helps, but it does force coalitions and slows things down a bit.
Thirith on 4/10/2018 at 09:35
Switzerland has a system of proportional representation where the four biggest parties always share government at the highest level and always have to collaborate on proposals to parliament, where practically all parties are represented. Majorities affect the balance of power, but you don't have a governing party and an opposition. As a result, everything takes fairly long, everything has to be a compromise, but I think that this - in combination with the good old Swiss tradition to give the public a vote on almost everything - is one of the reasons why Switzerland hasn't become as polarised as most of the surrounding countries. Having to please everyone at least somewhat is baked into the system.
Though one of the big negatives is that social change takes forever to be turned into laws. There is a reason why women in Switzerland were only able to vote in national elections/referendums in 1971, and in some cantons women only got the cantonal vote in 1990, which is a fucking disgrace.
SubJeff on 4/10/2018 at 17:41
That sounds just as bad as many Eastern countries with terrible rights for women though, so that idea is out.
scumble on 4/10/2018 at 17:41
Yes, that last point is a bit dismal - but you could account for some things being Swiss cultural inertia rather than the system as such. Switzerland is certainly regarded as one of the most stable countries.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
That sounds just as bad as many Eastern countries with terrible rights for women though, so that idea is out.
Well I don't think you can tie a PR system to bad rights for women.
Nameless Voice on 4/10/2018 at 17:50
Quote Posted by icemann
Have to say that politics is definitely a MUCH bigger deal over in the US than here in Australia. You see on TV about someone not wanting to date a person since [they're] republican etc. To me that's just ridiculous, as there is far more to someone than just what political party they support, but meh.
That's because the politics over there is so much more extreme.
Their current president is a racist, sexist, bigoted liar and makes no attempt to hide it. That kind of means that anyone who supports him is, themselves, a bigot. Could you really have a relationship with a bigot? Maybe you could get away with it, for a time, by steering very clear of any kind of political debate, but it probably still wouldn't work out. You couldn't avoid such things ever coming up with someone that you are in a relationship with.
It's not anywhere like the same as supporting a normal right- or left-leaning party here in Europe. It's more like supporting one of the neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist parties that have been springing up lately.
Quote Posted by icemann
Question is, is a party better with a more "individual" leader who stands true to his/her ideals regardless of their parties stance, or a leader who takes in the opinions of their party and only says what their party as a whole believes in. Personally I far prefer a good leader, with their own opinions on things (whether good or bad) and stays true to that.
I'd like to see a system of government made up of individuals who stand up for their ideals. In other words, the abolishment of political parties, but instead a parliament of individuals who all have to come to agreements, rather than a party that sets a line and everyone in the party has to follow it.
The Swiss system sounds nice, though. I knew they had a lot of referendums, but I didn't realise they also had a government like that.
I actually saw an interesting TED talk recently where someone proposed replacing elected politicians with (slightly controlled) randomly selected individuals, which is a concept that has some appeal:
(
https://www.ted.com/talks/brett_hennig_what_if_we_replaced_politicians_with_randomly_selected_people) Brett Hennig: What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?
I'd imagine a lot of people would hate having to uproot their lives if they were chosen, though.
Nicker on 4/10/2018 at 18:58
We actually had a thread about sortition. Worse than hating to uproot their lives, people are apparently reluctant to put aside their cynicism for a few minutes.
;)
Thirith on 6/10/2018 at 10:29
I'd like to see a system of government made up of individuals who stand up for their ideals. In other words, the abolishment of political parties, but instead a parliament of individuals who all have to come to agreements, rather than a party that sets a line and everyone in the party has to follow it.One of the things that is tricky is the balance of standing up for ideals vs. compromise; I don't think you get a stable, working political system without the latter. More than that, I think people need to understand that democratic politics is very much about compromise, not about "We won! Suck it, assholes!" At the same time, compromise should be something that comes at the endpoint of a thorough, respectful struggle between points of view. Also, IMO both politicians and the electorate should be up front about compromise not being something evil and/or weak but one of the fundamental qualities of getting hundreds of thousands or more to live together and work towards a functioning society. At present, I may be more cynical about the electorate than I am about politicians.